This week's editorial "Best of Both Worlds" has
brought in a whole sack full of mail, hardly surprising as it brought up the old
QuakeWorld vs Quake II debate again. In fact, we got so many mails that I've had
to split them over two pages - one page for each side of the debate.
As for me? I think both games are good, but at the end of the day I play almost
entirely Quake II now. Well, Quake II CTF and Deadlode II to be more precise - I
haven't played straight Quake II deathmatch for almost a year now except at LAN
And it's not just the better graphics, better models, better skins, better art,
better levels and .. well, better everything really. Though obviously that helps.
Quake II just feels right to me. Maybe it's because I didn't spend two years playing
QuakeWorld 24 hours a day like some of you? But whatever the reason, I find Quake II
just as intense as QuakeWorld, and far more rewarding than QuakeWorld can ever hope to be.
For example, I don't see why QuakeWorlders have this thing about "weapons balance".
It's like that's a dirty word for some of them. They seem to assume it means the
weapons are all the same, when actually it just means they all have their own strengths
and weaknesses that make them all useful in their own ways. How is that a bad thing?
Both games have their good points though, and hopefully id will succeed in taking the
best bits of both games and building them into Quake III Arena. Because if they fail
it's going to be ugly.
If Quake III Arena is pure QuakeWorld, many Quake II players will stick with Quake II.
If it is pure Quake II, most QuakeWorld players will stick with QuakeWorld (again).
And if it is a mishmash of both that fails to gel, nobody will play it.
I'd hate to be id...
Anyway, on with the mail -
From : Rorshach
Subject : "Best of Both Worlds" feedback
Just wanted to express my support to Paul Campbell on his well-written,
timely, and insightful article. I agree with almost every point he brings
up, and I'm ecstatic to hear of the popularity of Q2 on the other side of
Frankly, I ceased enjoying quake the moment I found myself frantically
running for the RL upon every respawn. Sure, I won alot with that strategy,
but it was boring as hell. Q2 sucked me back into the gaming scene, and kept
me there yea, even unto the present day.
The only thing about Paul's article I didn't like is that it has made me
ashamed that the q2 community has been outshouted by the q1 guys. Well, that
Way to go Paul! Give me hand grenades, or give me death!
From : Frank Schnurr
Subject : agree wholeheartedly with editorial
Paul Campbell's editorial, "Best of Both Worlds," is right on the money.
Quake seems to enable a tighter control over aiming & movement than Quake
II, but otherwise I prefer Q2 in every aspect.
The slower weapon-switching of Q2 means that you have to account for 'weapon
downtime' while you're playing--which means that your situational awareness
is critical to your success.
The slower rockets of Q2 means that you have to lead your targets more. For
me, absolutely nothing in the game is as satisfying as firing that long,
lone rocket at someone while they're moving---sometimes going up elevators
along the way---and connecting while they wonder wtf happened. Shooting
someone while they're leaping in mid-air is even more satisfying when that
laughter-producing rain of gibs comes down.
The slower rockets also enable skillful players to take out
rocket-launcher-wielding llamas with a lowly shotgun or even a blaster
(can't beat the humiliation factor). In Q1, that llama would have unjustly
dominated the encounter, just because he got to the rocket launcher first.
And, as Paul pointed out, balanced weapons make for a more exciting
game---just like in professional sports games, a one-sided blowout becomes
boring, while a down-to-the-last-second tie-breaker is truly exciting. I've
fought in many battles where balanced weapons meant that both sides took a
severe beating, and part of the thrill of victory is due to the knowledge of
how close to death you came. Even for the loser in these encounters, there
is often a grudging respect for the skillz and luck of the winner, knowing
that you both had an even chance at winning, but the better man won---in
this round, at least.
Quake is a great game, but I prefer Q2 for all these reasons....
From : David Shaw
Subject : Article by Paul Campbell
Being a FPS aficionado since Wolf3D, I can claim that I'm not a "newbie" Quake
II junkie who just arrived on the scene.
QuakeWorld was rediculously imbalanced. Either that or every server I've ever
played on with QW had awful players on it. Quake II, on the other hand, is
simply a better FPS game and a better vehicle for true "skill on skill" DM.
Thresh's opinions on the subject be damned.
I've never understood people's dire fascination with QuakeWorld. I was there in
Software Mode, I was there with a Verite Card, I was there with a Voodoo then a
Voodoo2, and even with a Riva TNT (just a technological timeline - sounds nicer
than saying I've been playing it forever, don't you think?). The game just
lacks. It's wasteful.
Even those that claim to be "good" players will tell you that there really
only is 2 or 3 good weapons to use in Quake. The RL paired with the Shaft or the
Perforator as a close tertiary choice.
Quake II is a better game. It is basically Doom3 (a sequal, in my eyes, to the
best DM experience ever). A better DM experience (in my opinion, of course), and
it is a damn shame that people who like QuakeWorld abuse their bandwidth to make
Quake III QuakeWorld. If it is, I know I'll be sticking with Quake II and the
more skilled players.
But I rant. I know I'm ranting. Leave me alone. Simply put, I'll play the best
game of the 3. Right now, the best of the 2 is Quake II hands down. If QIIIA is
better, so be it. But I'm honestly doubtful it will be.
VWEP is definately cool. "Fast" weapon switching is simply stupid. I don't care
what ANY of you say, it's stupid. Don't like slow rockets? Use something else.
I'm sick of listening to you QuakeWorld whiners. Move on. QW is still cool, but
it's a carnage fest; that's about all it'll ever be.
It's a "win by controlling the resources" game. Win by controlling the RL and
the Quad. For those of you that really think that's fun, um. I feel sorry for
From : Kagey
Subject : Best of both worlds
Just read the editorial "Best of both worlds". I agree completely with the
writer regarding play issues in QuakeII. I don't play QuakeII over Quake
because of graphics. I do it because I like the way QuakeII plays better.
However, I am curious because the title is "Best of both worlds" but he
does not say which elements from Quake are best. :)